Training vs. Psychology

ORIGINAL: espencer



So according to you, lets say that i dont walk my dog, then my dog gets frustrated for lack of exercise and becomes aggressive for so much frustration; can i still modify her behavior even when i still  dont walk her?

Yes.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: espencer

So according to you, lets say that i dont walk my dog, then my dog gets frustrated for lack of exercise and becomes aggressive for so much frustration; can i still modify her behavior even when i still  dont walk her?

Yes.

That does not make any sense, if i dont know the why then i'm not able to work on it, just like if i go to a doctor and before i tell him how do i feel he just tells me "i dont need to know, take this medicine and you will feel better" what would you think about the doctor? he needs to know the why so he can prescribe the right medicine for the proper problem

ORIGINAL: espencer

That does not make any sense, if i dont know the why then i'm not able to work on it,

Just had to jump in to say- there is a whole area of psychology dedicated to the notion stated by mudpuppy- which is very large, and very successful both theoretically and in its application to real life situations and problems. So there must be some truth to it somewhere!

Perhaps the answer to why a behaviour is occuring is embedded in the what, where, when and how.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: espencer

So according to you, lets say that i dont walk my dog, then my dog gets frustrated for lack of exercise and becomes aggressive for so much frustration; can i still modify her behavior even when i still  dont walk her?

Yes.

That does not make any sense, if i dont know the why then i'm not able to work on it, just like if i go to a doctor and before i tell him how do i feel he just tells me "i dont need to know, take this medicine and you will feel better" what would you think about the doctor? he needs to know the why so he can prescribe the right medicine for the proper problem

The interesting thing is, for a long time doctors didn't exist in the sense they do now, and they didn't know why things they did worked. They just knew they did. That's why Chinese medicine still has such a huge following. Consider willow bark, the age old prescription for pain. We still use it in asprin, I believe, but now we know how and why it works and can streamline our use of it. It still works if we don't know why, and we still self-medicate our symptoms without knowing why we have them and how the medicine helps us.

So, knowing why to prescribe something can be as simple as identifying a symptom. Any trainer can treat a symptom if they have the basic knowledge (i.e. basic training methods). I treat pain symptoms in myself all the time without knowing what I'm really treating, but the pain meds still work.

I guess it takes a doctor to unravel the symptoms to find the root cause of them. IMO, a good trainer is also a good doctor. It's not so complex a field that you can't be good at both.

That does not make any sense, if i dont know the why then i'm not able to work on it, just like if i go to a doctor and before i tell him how do i feel he just tells me "i dont need to know, take this medicine and you will feel better" what would you think about the doctor? he needs to know the why so he can prescribe the right medicine for the proper problem

Espencer, any behavior can be modified.  The "why" of the behavior does not always need to be addressed. 

While I agree that it is not always the best choice to modify one behavior without finding the root, it can be done.  I take a more holistic approach and try to see the whole animal and deal with the behaviors as part of the whole.  That doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, it's just my approach.

And your example truly does not apply.  You are confusing an ailment with a behavior.  However, Vinia and Corvus gave some good answers as well and I think they made better points.

For me, personally, the last page of discussion illustrates nicely a difference between "training" and "psychology."

Training is very much about doing, about using an established pattern that has a track record to produce specific results. Psychology on the other hand, is analytical, questions are asked, opportunities for evaluation are made, and results are examined and interpreted. We all have different personalities, some of us are ponderers, some of us are doers, and some are a bit of both.

When it comes down to it, you are who you are. The way you approach your dog is likely to reflect that.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: espencer

So according to you, lets say that i dont walk my dog, then my dog gets frustrated for lack of exercise and becomes aggressive for so much frustration; can i still modify her behavior even when i still  dont walk her?

Yes.

That does not make any sense, if i dont know the why then i'm not able to work on it, just like if i go to a doctor and before i tell him how do i feel he just tells me "i dont need to know, take this medicine and you will feel better" what would you think about the doctor? he needs to know the why so he can prescribe the right medicine for the proper problem

I don't mean to get all philosophical, but can we as humans ever truely know "why" the behavior is happening?  The most we can do is speculate or make an educated guess.  That is why I have a problem using the term psychology when it comes to dogs.  The modern field of psychology is based on talking, which although I would love to have my dogs be able to do, dogs can not do.

To use an analogy of human psycholgy and behavior that is rather close to my heart: starting a diet and exercise regimin. Working out (or not) and eating certain foods are behaviors. Very few of us when we choose to change those behaviors (or are dragged kicking and screaming by someone else) actually change our whole feeling about food and activity. We modify our behavior because we are rewarded (eventually) by weight loss and feeling better, but very few people ever get to a point where they deep down prefer a carrot over a piece of chocolate cake. Our psychological relationship with food is something that is deeply ingrained in us, since for most humans the very first thing they do once they are born is eat. We eat several times a day every day and it is much more practical to simply modify our food-related behaviors than to try to modify our entire relationship with food and the feelings and emotions that go along with it.

For me, training is thee actual techniques used for behavior mod. But psychology would be understanding how the underlying behaviors and that dog's particular motivations would be used to choose which training technique to use. No training techniques works 100% on 100% of dogs. And some trainers are simply better at different techniques than others.

You can see psychology at work particularly with extremely shy, unsocialized dogs. The rescue my step-mom got her puppy mill rescue dog from recommends NO "formal" training for the first several weeks after a rescue dog comes into a new home. In their 15 years of rescuing dogs, they have found that is can really overwhelm and intimidate a very shy dog. They want the dogs to get used to the household routines before introducing a clicker-training or other training program. Knowing when and how to use a training technique is as important (in my opinion) as knowing the techniques themselves. I know Ben would shut down and refuse to eat if you were even in the same room with him when they first got him. Even NILIF would have overwhelmed that poor dog.

You really need to know what works best for that particular dog AND that particular behavior. Clicker training is great for Lucy, but I notice that she gets frustrated with free-shaping (like the box game), so we stick with luring & shaping. She's also very prey motivated. So rewarding her for ignoring the squirrels with a squeaky toy is more productive than rewarding her with the liver treat that she'd normally turn herself inside-out for. My dad has never read a training bok and never used a treat or punishment with his vizsla, but she would do anything he asks and seems to read his mind. Her biggest reward is a "good girl!"

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

While I agree that it is not always the best choice to modify one behavior without finding the root, it can be done. 

 
Is not that some kind of "gambling"? some kind of "ini mini miny moe, i hope i choose the right one" game? your chances for being successfull are for sure less than if you know from the beginning that i'm not walking my dog
 
I mean, when a person comes here with a problem about his/her dog, is enough for that person just to write in the original post only something like "i have a problem with my dog, help me" and thats it? no describing what kind of problem or what the owner is doing or not doing? can we be able to sucessfully help that person?
 
Dont we ask for details everytime to see whats the best solution to help that person? once we ask the details we can know the WHY the dog is acting that way and we can offer the best approach
 
Can we do the same without knowing anything about it? by just knowing the dog has a problem but not what kind?

Is not that some kind of "gambling"? some kind of "ini mini miny moe, i hope i choose the right one" game? your chances for being successfull are for sure less than if you know from the beginning that i'm not walking my dog

 
I totally agree, it's not the best method.  But you asked if it could be done, and it can be done.  As you would see in the rest of my post, it's not a method that I would choose.  But it's completely possible.
 

  "i have a problem with my dog, help me" and thats it? no describing what kind of problem or what the owner is doing or not doing? can we be able to sucessfully help that person?

 
Nope, but it sure seems like some famous behaviorists recommend the same protocol or regime, if you will, for all problems.
 

  Dont we ask for details everytime to see whats the best solution to help that person? once we ask the details we can know the WHY the dog is acting that way and we can offer the best approach

 
Actually, as another poster stated, we can approximate the why, but without a true line of absolute communication we will never really KNOW why.
 
Can you teach your dog to sit in front of the door when it needs to eliminate?  Or to ring a bell?  Yes.  Can you teach your dog to touch the remote control for the TV instead?  Yes. 
 
Can you modify a male dog's urination behavior so that he doesn't hike his leg?  Yup.  Do you need to know why he hikes his leg to modify this behavior?  Probably not. 
 
On a "Power Walk" or a "Leadership Walk" the dog doesn't get to sniff around, at least according to what has been posted about this type of walk.  That's a situational behavior modification where the "why" isn't important.
 
I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just trying to say that it can be done.  I wouldn't try to do it that way, you probably wouldn't want to do it that way.  Some people might.

I understand now why some people are so against alpha rolling, they dont understand the why, when, by who and how should be done but they focus only in the "it has been done" and thats all that matters
 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Nope, but it sure seems like some famous behaviorists recommend the same protocol or regime, if you will, for all problems.

 
I dont know any behaviorist that recommends the same approach for all the problems, i actually, can show you videos from one of them that approaches the situation differently depending on the problem []

i actually, can show you videos

 
you don't say?[]

they focus only in the "it has been done" and thats all that matters

 
that's all that matters to the dog.

training vs. psychology

just the title of the topic pits one up against the other it seems with many folks seemingly blessing one while cursing the other.

how many of ya folks actually use BOTH depending upon the situation and/or what you're trying to accomplish?